4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[GenPion]

So 3D 4K Blu-ray discs are now back on the table?

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by Wickerman1972

So what happened to the 300gb discs I heard they were working on back in 2013? Supposedly these were to be ready by late 2015, right when 4K blu ray is to launch. But everything I've seen since says they'll be going with 100gb discs (Pathetic) and 66gb discs (Incredibly pathetic) for 4K blu ray.

How is it pathetic? The press releases have already indicated that all 4K Blu-ray releases will have a bit-rate in the 50mbps range (or higher).

Basically, every single release on 4K Blu-ray will have a better encode than a Blu-ray counterpart if the material is handled correctly by the studio.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by GenPion

So 3D 4K Blu-ray discs are now back on the table?

I think the main wrinkle now is nobody can say UHD-3DBD with a straight face yet

[GenPion]

3D Ultra Hi-Def 4K Blu-ray. Bazinga!

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by GenPion

So 3D 4K Blu-ray discs are now back on the table?

Just need some content now

[David M]

Originally Posted by Wickerman1972

So what happened to the 300gb discs I heard they were working on back in 2013? Supposedly these were to be ready by late 2015, right when 4K blu ray is to launch. But everything I've seen since says they'll be going with 100gb discs (Pathetic) and 66gb discs (Incredibly pathetic) for 4K blu ray.

There was never a 300gb Blu-ray standard, this was (maddeningly) mis-reported by several sites that should have known better.

The 300gb Panasonic/Sony disc is an archival disc for professional use.

100gb isn't pathetic - this obsession with the biggest numbers possible has to stop...

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Lyris

There was never a 300gb Blu-ray standard, this was (maddeningly) mis-reported by several sites that should have known better.

The 300gb Panasonic/Sony disc is an archival disc for professional use.

100gb isn't pathetic - this obsession with the biggest numbers possible has to stop...

Exactly, hevc is way too damn effective for it to matter

[GenPion]

Considering a well mastered Blu-ray can look amazing with 30mbps or higher (and downright INCREDIBLE around 40mbps) I think the specs for the new format suggest that we will already be seeing near-perfection in home media presentations. (Actually, the content will look so good it will basically feel like perfection unless there are inherent source problems or someone is viewing on a ginormous screen - which most viewers simply don't have.)

[AK65]

Originally Posted by GenPion

How is it pathetic? The press releases have already indicated that all 4K Blu-ray releases will have a bit-rate in the 50mbps range (or higher).

Basically, every single release on 4K Blu-ray will have a better encode than a Blu-ray counterpart if the material is handled correctly by the studio.

40% more bits with 300% more pixels doesn't seem that impressive.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by AK65

40% more bits with 300% more pixels doesn't seem that impressive.

Unless they have really done something drastically off with planning for the new format, I wouldn't exactly expect this to equate to poor quality... which is how it sounds from what you are trying to suggest.

It's not as if these will look worse off compression-wise compared to Blu-ray. If that happened, the format would be DOA guaranteed.

[AK65]

Originally Posted by GenPion

Unless they have really done something drastically off with planning for the new format, I wouldn't exactly expect this to equate to poor quality... which is how it sounds from what you are trying to suggest.

It's not as if these will look worse off compression-wise compared to Blu-ray. If that happened, the format would be DOA guaranteed.

Actually the low end 66 GB discs can support 108 Mbps which will be fine. The larger the resolution the more effective compression is.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

The 3D extension for HEVC has been completed: http://phenix.int-evry.fr/jct2/doc_e...nt.php?id=2495

I looked at the 3D HEVC standard and the only profile listed is the 3D Main profile which is limited to 8-bit video. Apparently the people who worked on 3D HEVC decided that 8-bit video was good enough. Depending on your view of 3D that will be either amusing or sad.

Originally Posted by AK65

40% more bits with 300% more pixels doesn't seem that impressive.

The maximum video bit rate is going from 40 Mbps to 100 Mbps. That is 2.5x the bit rate for 4x the resolution and the video will be encoded with HEVC.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

The maximum video bit rate is going from 40 Mbps to 100 Mbps. That is 2.5x the bit rate for 4x the resolution and the video will be encoded with HEVC.

And more importantly the higher the resolution the more effective the codec can be and so there can be less loss. It is a bit like with 3D, it had 2x the number of pixels but only needed ~1.5 the compressed data

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

And more importantly the higher the resolution the more effective the codec can be and so there can be less loss. It is a bit like with 3D, it had 2x the number of pixels but only needed ~1.5 the compressed data

One thing we need to see happen is less pre-filtering and higher bitrates (super bit, if you will) from day one.

That would be a huge step in lessening artifacts, including banding and macroblocking. A sticking point throughout these discussions was about using only 10 bit for HDR content because that could lead to its own issues of banding, etc. Low bitrates, especially during harder to compress scenes, not just during fast motion, tend to exacerbate these artifacts.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

One thing we need to see happen is less pre-filtering and higher bitrates (super bit, if you will) from day one.

agree, I hope they use the BW to the max for the best quality (and if there is no loss in the compression all the better). My issue is with the myth that N times the pixels means you need N times the BW (or capacity) for a similar result but with added definition. That is wrong. N times is a worst case scenario and there will be times in the millions of pixels and hundreds of thousands of frames in the film where you can add detail, fix losses and reduce the BW and so in the end movies won't need N times the compressed information

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree, I hope they use the BW to the max for the best quality (and if there is no loss in the compression all the better). My issue is with the myth that N times the pixels means you need N times the BW (or capacity) for a similar result but with added definition....

Debunked months ago as, for instance, illustrated by HEVC bitrate results plotted out in a graph from an independent professional lab which did a scientific test involving participants watching 4K content (albeit standard dynamic range) seated only 1.5PH from the 4K (UHD) 10bit display (so that artifacts or poorer quality would be more obvious at such a close distance as compared to something like 3 PH away)….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...er#post9323235

[Penton-Man]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...p#post10480414

A few updates/additions to the freebie article ^ in CineAlta magazine linked to in the 3rd paragraph (Amazing Spiderman 2) above….

1. As of Feb. 1, the new status of Colorworks - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...e#post10368382

2. In fairness to the Red folks, I would say that independent observers (not working for either Sony or Red Digital Cinema Camera Company believe (thru testing) that the Red Dragon possess more visible stops of dynamic range than does the Sony F65 (which has a larger dynamic range than the F55).

3. Today, (while Sony doesn’t own it) there is content that was specifically shot from the outset of production with HDR capture and mastering in mind which was previewed (4 min. clip) at the SMPTE Tech conference in L.A. last fall and later discussed in the dez at the last HPA Tech Retreat. It’s since been submitted to an upcoming film festival in D.C. for consideration to their program.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Debunked months ago as

I think you misunderstood my point. when I said "the BW to the max for the best quality " I did not mean "the BW to the max, for the best quality " (i.e. 100mb no matter what) but as much as is needed for the best quality possible (i.e. if for a very small segment 80 means some loss of data but 85 means no loss of data then go with 85 but at that point there is no need to go to 90 since it adds nothing)

illustrated by HEVC bitrate results plotted out in a graph from an independent professional lab which did a scientific test involving participants watching 4K content (albeit standard dynamic range) seated only 1.5PH from the 4K (UHD) 10bit display (so that artifacts or poorer quality would be more obvious at such a close distance as compared to something like 3 PH away)….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....er#post9323235

No offence to the lab that did it, but I find such tests are useless, because they are based on ignorance (not of the lab but the participants).

I am willing to assume the methodology was good and don't have an issue with that, but:

1) if the video quality is subjectively thought of as bad that means something but if it is subjectively thought of as good it does not mean anything, for example everyone can look at a three year olds interpretation of the Mona Lisa and say it is not right (or bad), but it would take someone extremely well acquainted with the painting to look at that painting of a lady sitting and smiling and say exactly how it differs from the real thing.

2) in my experience with CODECS, I find when a new CODEC comes out I tend to way over value it because I don't know what to look for (i.e. looking for the issues that were glaring with the last CODEC) and so I miss the issues the new one introduces. In the end it is mostly about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

3)look at the graph



it is not even at 100%, I would want that as a min why accept anything less unless we are forced?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I think you misunderstood my point. when I said "the BW to the max for the best quality " I did not mean "the BW to the max, for the best quality " (i.e. 100mb no matter what) but as much as is needed for the best quality possible (i.e. if for a very small segment 80 means some loss of data but 85 means no loss of data then go with 85 but at that point there is no need to go to 90 since it adds nothing)



No offence to the lab that did it, but I find such tests are useless, because they are based on ignorance (not of the lab but the participants).

I am willing to assume the methodology was good and don't have an issue with that, but:

1) if the video quality is subjectively thought of as bad that means something but if it is subjectively thought of as good it does not mean anything, for example everyone can look at a three year olds interpretation of the Mona Lisa and say it is not right (or bad), but it would take someone extremely well acquainted with the painting to look at that painting of a lady sitting and smiling and say exactly how it differs from the real thing.

2) in my experience with CODECS, I find when a new CODEC comes out I tend to way over value it because I don't know what to look for (i.e. looking for the issues that were glaring with the last CODEC) and so I miss the issues the new one introduces. In the end it is mostly about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

3)look at the graph



it is not even at 100%, I would want that as a min why accept anything less unless we are forced?

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

No offence to the lab that did it, but I find such tests are useless, because they are based on ignorance (not of the lab but the participants).

Well, the study was performed with next-gen (4K- HEVC enabled) broadcast in mind (http://www.4ever-project.com/4ever-project/ ), ergo some of the limitations as to the intended scope and study participants, which is one reason why, (see the text below the graph in my original post from 9 months ago) I extrapolated up from there as to a starting ballpark average bitrate for Blu-ray quality (not including some overhead for the HDR encoded parameter). But my take-home message to readers, at the risk of feeding a reply to the ‘pathetic’ poster from the last page, is that 100 GB Ultra HD Blu-ray discs are not ‘pathetic’ for 24fps movie content….far from it.